MPAA to FCC: critics of video blocking proposals are lying

Hollywood is now resorting to calling critics of its analog stream-blocking …

The movie studios have a new Holy Grail, it seems: Federal Communications Commission permission to cable companies to shut down the analog streams on video-on-demand movie programming. As Ars readers know, we've been covering this issue for a while. But the Motion Picture Association of America's latest letter to the FCC pulls out all the stops, rhetoric-wise, calling criticisms of this scheme "complete and utter nonsense that only can be intended to stir up baseless fears among consumers that their equipment will suddenly go dark and be unusable for any purpose."

These are "deplorable claims," the MPAA told the FCC on Monday. Plus they "distort the truth." They're also "simply and irrefutably untrue," the trade association adds (in case you didn't get it yet).

False untruthfulness

The main target of MPAA's outrage is the advocacy group Public Knowledge, one of whose spokespersons, Harold Feld, has an ongoing video series called "Five Minutes With Harold Feld," in which the aforementioned offers his takes on "incredibly boring and wonky things" and tries "to make them slightly less boring, because this stuff is important." The allegedly offensive five-minute video in question deals with what MPAA wants, which is technically called "Selectable Output Control"—shutting down the analog stream to HDTVs and other devices because it is less secure (copyable) than digital streams, which can be scrambled. The FCC currently prohibits the practice.

The studios say they want to plug the "analog hole" with SOC because it will allow them to offer the public pre-DVD VoD movie releases with less threat of piracy. The problem, as Feld's video on this subject points out, is that a considerable amount of analog only connected equipment won't be able to receive these offerings. "And for this," Feld skeptically declares, "we're going to break 25 million television sets, and break your TiVO, and break your Slingbox, and make sure you can't use it on VoD anymore, because [Feld looking especially skeptical here] it's so important to get these movies to video-on-demand earlier."

Feld's "deplorable claims" are "absolutely, 100 percent untrue," MPAA counters. "The use of SOC would have no impact whatsoever on the ability of existing television sets, Tivos, Slingboxes or any other consumer product to work in exactly the same fashion that such devices work today. While products with only unprotected outputs and inputs would not be able to receive the new early window offerings that would be made possible by the SOC waiver, no device would be broken. Nor would any consumer be unable to receive traditional VOD in the same way that he or she does today."

A considerable amount of time in this debate is being spent rather theatrically denouncing words that clearly function as metaphors. As we've pointed out, although SOC won't render analog-only HDTVs and other home theater equipment "broken," as in "physically damaged with wires poking out of the set," it will disable the ability of this gear to access what will immediately become the most valuable offering on television: pre-DVD release VoD movies.

What's the problem anyway?

The rest of MPAA's filing is a long list of ways that movies are copied and illegally distributed on the Internet—further proof positive that the studios need SOC. Among other claims, the filing insists that real time duplication of HBO per-per-view events on various websites represents clear evidence that "thieves steal this content through unprotected outputs."

From this litany, a disinterested reader might conclude that Hollywood's efforts to stop this activity have been amazingly unsuccessful, and the producers might want to reconsider their approach to the problem. MPAA, for example, decries the fact that "literally every DVD that MPAA member studios released for rental or purchase during the past year has been made available for unlawful downloading or streaming online."

If that is the case, why does the MPAA extol the virtues of its DVD Content Scramble System (CSS) before the United States Copyright Office? CSS and other "protection technologies" have allowed content producers to "distribute their valuable content in higher quality, more convenient digital formats," MPAA wrote in the office's latest proceeding on exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. As a result, "DVDs have become one of the most widely adopted consumer electronics products in history, and the pace of adoption has been unprecedented. Consumers have greater access to movies and TV shows than ever before."

It doesn't seem to matter. In Hollywood-think on this issue, the solution to each apparent technology/regulation failure is a new tech fix that requires new rules and a new explanation of why it won't hurt consumers. TV watchers, MPAA notes, are already used to not seeing stuff on their cable boxes. So what's the problem?

"A typical subscriber today already encounters numerous instances where a particular channel or service is not available. For example, a given consumer might not subscribe to a cable company’s high-definition service or might not receive premium channels (such as HBO). In either case, if consumers were to attempt to access one of these channels, they would receive an on-screen message advising them that their service does not include access to the requested content."

MPAA goes so far as to suggest that if SOC isn't granted, individual movie studios will begin releasing pre-DVD content on non-cable distribution alternatives—such as SONY's experiments with encrypted Internet streams sent directly to its Bravia HDTVs (Hancock already streams and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs is coming next). Thus, the trade group warns, "it is denial of the waiver that could result in a scenario in which millions of consumers would have to buy new equipment to receive new content offerings." That is, of course, assuming that consumers would bother to do so, given the enormous amount of content they can already get over the 'Net.

Not-so-subtle

Needless to say, Public Knowledge is taking strong exception to statements that pretty much call the group a pack of liars. MPAA's latest commentary "utterly fails to demonstrate that anybody steals content through the analog hole," PK's Gigi Sohn declared in a commentary published this morning. And "by attacking Public Knowledge and specifically Harold's integrity, it is a not-so-subtle effort to spin the debate over this waiver as 'copyleft' Public Knowledge versus 'reasonable' Hollywood, which only wants this itsy bitsy waiver so that it can provide the 'pro-consumer' benefit of making movies available on video on demand a few weeks earlier than they are now."

Sohn notes that a wide variety of organizations besides PK oppose SOC, including the Consumer Electronics Association and the Independent Film and Television Alliance. No one knows how much their concerns count with the new FCC, which has yet to take a stand on this controversial issue.

77 Reader Comments

As I said before, bring on the SOC! It won't do a thing to reduce piracy, and will get high (video and audio) quality content on BitTorrent that much sooner. It's a win-win for people who hate the MPAA and/or want stuff for free.

Feld's "deplorable claims" are "absolutely, 100 percent untrue," MPAA counters. "The use of SOC would have no impact whatsoever on the ability of existing television sets, Tivos, Slingboxes or any other consumer product to work in exactly the same fashion that such devices work today. While products with only unprotected outputs and inputs would not be able to receive the new early window offerings that would be made possible by the SOC waiver, no device would be broken. Nor would any consumer be unable to receive traditional VOD in the same way that he or she does today."

The MPAA is correct here. But to me it all boils down to the fact that this is a slippery slope...first pre-DVD run movies can only be viewed over SOC, then more and more content becomes locked down behind SOC until pretty much everything is.

Also, as has been said many times over on this site, if the MPAA really feels that the public *needs* this tech they should be going after the STB/TV manufactures to voluntarily include SOC in their devices, not try to force them to include it via government regulation.

"False untruthfulness" -- gotta love news from the Second Department of Redundant Redundancy

quote:

Feld's "deplorable claims" are "absolutely, 100 percent untrue," MPAA counters. "The use of SOC would have no impact whatsoever on the ability of existing television sets, Tivos, Slingboxes or any other consumer product to work in exactly the same fashion that such devices work today.

That's only true if they continue to broadcast as they do now. If they decide to flag TV specials (or before long, anything hyped) the same way as early VoD movies, then yes, analog viewers will be blocked from watching.

I don't like slippery slope arguments, but the MPAA is king of them, so it's only fair to question how long it takes for them to decide that practically everything ever is "high value" enough to get a flag.

Okay, if they want SOC so they can bring pre-release HD movies out, then how about it can ONLY be used for that? I am sick of groups asking for restrictions, getting them, and then using them completely differently than they said they would.

And like the first poster, I don't understand how this will stop torrents.

Originally posted by skicow:Also, as has been said many times over on this site, if the MPAA really feels that the public *needs* this tech they should be going after the STB/TV manufactures to voluntarily include SOC in their devices, not try to force them to include it via government regulation.

I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. Content producers are asking for the freedom to start using it, not a government mandate to force it on anyone. It's currently illegal for them to do so. The content producers don't really care much either way if you have compatible equipment or not. That's the beef.

The SOC will start with movies, then proceed to "TV content which is aired exclusively on a station" to "any content which is funded by advertisers".

While I do agree the entire "it'll break your TV" debate is being blown completely out of proportion, if passed, SOC granting paves the way for other features to be blocked, such as DVR fast forwarding.

I'm particularly against any corporation whose sole intent is to control/limit hardware for their content. DVD sales aren't plummeting because of piracy. They're plummeting because people aren't willing to shell out $20+ for a movie anymore, especially when the turn around time to see it on TV is now faster than ever before.

I get the reasons the MPAA want this, but they're completely pulling the wool over the eyes of non-tech savvy people in regard to "piracy", especially when the industry is reporting *record breaking* box office returns.

Just once, I wish our government would tell these idiots to STFU and work with customers, rather than against them. But, alas, they're too busy passing idiotic bailout programs to give a damn about the latest offering of Twilight.

Originally posted by skicow:Also, as has been said many times over on this site, if the MPAA really feels that the public *needs* this tech they should be going after the STB/TV manufactures to voluntarily include SOC in their devices, not try to force them to include it via government regulation.

I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. Content producers are asking for the freedom to start using it, not a government mandate to force it on anyone. It's currently illegal for them to do so. The content producers don't really care much either way if you have compatible equipment or not. That's the beef.

I think one part of the opposition is to even further dividing the TV market. I mean, currently if you want to watch everything new that's broadcast or released, I'm guessing you need:

HDTV with NTSC tuner and HDMI

Digital cable with highest channel package

Satellite service with highest channel package

DVD player

Blu-ray player

Plus a decent receiver and speaker set if you actually want to enjoy it in a med-large room.

I'm guessing the average viewer only has an analog TV with digital converter and maybe a DVD player. So buying a SOC-enabled digital set is one more financial barrier to more content.

For those who DO have a digital set, it was probably just purchased over the past few years as LCDs have rapidly improved. Now that's going to be outdated if they want the content behind the SOC wall?

The idiocy of the MPAA never ceases to amaze me. They don't even seem to realize that by enabling this they would be *reducing* their potential revenue by limiting their potential customers. Instead they seem hellbent on stopping piracy which can never be stopped. The pirates are always a step ahead and it only takes one to crack or steal and it's online. So why even try? They should instead focus on reaching as many customers as they actually can instead of pissing them off.

As well, how is this any different from being able to record to a vcr or dvr, which is legal? They just want to refight a battle they already lost.

Originally posted by skicow:The MPAA is correct here. But to me it all boils down to the fact that this is a slippery slope...first pre-DVD run movies can only be viewed over SOC, then more and more content becomes locked down behind SOC until pretty much everything is.

This is a valid point. The simple solution is have rules on what content can be encrypted and for how long. Only allow it for pre-DVD movies and only for a limited time. When the time limit is up or it becomes available on DVD it must be unencrypted.

My personal feeling is that this is just a Trojan Horse argument. The articles I've read just don't sound sincere to me as nobody has offered a compromise. I think that those most vocal just want unencrypted content to pirate as evidenced by Catafriggm.

The other argument - "If I can't have it you can't have it either" also seems valid. I think I used that argument when I broke my sister's new toy when I was 6. The only solution there is to grow up.

As we've pointed out, although SOC won't render analog-only HDTVs and other home theater equipment "broken," as in "physically damaged with wires poking out of the set," it will disable the ability of this gear to access what will immediately become the most valuable offering on television: pre-DVD release VoD movies.

I have never used a VoD movie, although my cable company PVR is capable of serving them. That pretty much guarantees that pre-DVD VoD movies are not, "the most valuable offering on television," at least not to me.

If the MPAA is going to get up in arms about the colloquial use of the word "broken", I think it is reasonable for me to object to the suggestion that their latest cash grab is "valuable" in any meaningful sense of the word.

Originally posted by David Bradbury:Okay, if they want SOC so they can bring pre-release HD movies out, then how about it can ONLY be used for that? I am sick of groups asking for restrictions, getting them, and then using them completely differently than they said they would.

And like the first poster, I don't understand how this will stop torrents.

This could be fun. Act like you're offering them EXACTLY what they're requesting by adding a bunch of heavy restrictions on how SOC can be used and watch them start weaseling. It could be a rather effective way for the FCC to extract the truth of what will actually happen in a few years.

The MPAA is correct here. But to me it all boils down to the fact that this is a slippery slope...first pre-DVD run movies can only be viewed over SOC, then more and more content becomes locked down behind SOC until pretty much everything is.

Also, as has been said many times over on this site, if the MPAA really feels that the public *needs* this tech they should be going after the STB/TV manufactures to voluntarily include SOC in their devices, not try to force them to include it via government regulation

Completely agree. If they're allowed to use SOC for one thing, they'll immediately start lobbying to get its use expanded.

"Pre-release" movies will never stop being "pre-release" and will always be locked behind SOC.

Consumers don't sit at home and pirate movies through their cable tv feed. It will have almost zero effect on piracy, all you need is one person to copy the film and put it on the web as a torrent. No encryption is perfectly secure, especially DRM-style schemes you have to have the code and the cypher. All it does is inconvenience normal consumers.

Originally posted by hessenpepper:The articles I've read just don't sound sincere to me as nobody has offered a compromise. I think that those most vocal just want unencrypted content to pirate as evidenced by Catafriggm.

By that reasoning, if I want to steal all the money out of your bank account but I'll settle for half of it, I must be a sincere guy for offering to compromise, right?

There have already been high profile instances where SOC has been triggered (presumably accidentally) and stopped people from viewing (not just recording, note) content they should have been able to see. If it becomes legal for studios and networks to use SOC, we will quite probably devolve to a situation where a great deal of content that is currently viewable on analog equipment gets permanently locked down behind the SOC wall. That has nothing to do with pirating or even legally timeshifting content.

"made available" - Does this mean on a torrent someplace? Most of the torrents I've connected to this year are miserably slow - bits per second download - for small files. Are movie torrents like this? If it is "made available" is there any chance the torrent would actually download successfully, and in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. not "200 years" in Azureus)? I don't know anything about movie torrents, but torrents overall seem ridiculously slow. I downloaded some small scans of o.o.p. material that took days, and these were tiny < 20MB. Could anyone actually complete a DVD download in anything like real time? Linux distro torrents seem really slow, too.

1) Reduce fair use rights of consumers to record their TV programing using a recorder of their choice2) Allow content owners to charge more for "premium" (not necessarily new) content while delaying cheaper DVD rentals 3) Lock people into cable/satellite model of distribution even further4) Place yet another burden on consumers and electronics manufacturers5) Improve their bottom line

Pirates will, of course, show more creativity and move to a mail order business or some other form of secure internet distribution that works around public torrents and all of the above.

Funny how the MPAA keeps trying to say they're offering some huge public service here via SOC. Yet, it seems the public at large doesn't want this at all. Neither do the electronics companies for that matter.

I think the studios are looking ahead to the demise of the DVD. Currently CD sales are in decline with music purchases going to downloads. Eventually the same thing will happen to movies. Once they stop making DVDs all movies become "prerelease" all the time (since they're never released on a physical disk). At that point, their waiver would give them the right to use SOC for everything and an analog TV becomes worthless.

Originally posted by hessenpepper:My personal feeling is that this is just a Trojan Horse argument. The articles I've read just don't sound sincere to me as nobody has offered a compromise. I think that those most vocal just want unencrypted content to pirate as evidenced by Catafriggm.

Since your so interested in seenig a compromise, here's one. Studios get to put movies out with SOC enforced, any content that uses SOC drops into public domain 5 years later with no exceptions and no extensions regardless of how many other formats it gets released in or what encryption methods are added. Breaking any added encryption or distributing tools to break it after the 5 year mark is legal with no exceptions. Want to release Transformers 4 a few weeks before DVD with SOC for payperview, that DVD content is public domain 5 years from the first SOC enforced broadcast.

Originally posted by trencher93ish:"made available" - Does this mean on a torrent someplace? Most of the torrents I've connected to this year are miserably slow - bits per second download - for small files. Are movie torrents like this? If it is "made available" is there any chance the torrent would actually download successfully, and in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. not "200 years" in Azureus)? I don't know anything about movie torrents, but torrents overall seem ridiculously slow. I downloaded some small scans of o.o.p. material that took days, and these were tiny < 20MB. Could anyone actually complete a DVD download in anything like real time? Linux distro torrents seem really slow, too.

There are thousands of people that want to see new movies for free and big torrents can be extremely fast. I used to download a popular TV show that was on at the same time as something else I watched. I discovered that rippers regularly put up torrents of the East coast run within an hour or two which meant I could sometimes finish downloading the whole episode *before it finished playing* here on the West coast. That was 350MB of data in 30-60min on a torrent heavily saturated with leeches. A full length movie encoded to 700MB could be downloaded in less than an hour easily on a healthy torrent.

I'm guessing that for most people the average is several hours to download a movie but it's not like they're waiting. All they have to do is set it up and walk away.

Originally posted by hessenpepper:I think that those most vocal just want unencrypted content to pirate as evidenced by Catafriggm.

If you're citing me here, I'm pretty sure you misunderstood what I said. Encryption makes 0 difference with regard to piracy. Stuff is pirated when unencrypted, and it will still be pirated when encrypted (just as with DVD, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, and computer DRM systems, all of which are encrypted and all of which do not inhibit piracy). Thus all that SOC/early release will do is allow people to get ahold of and stick content up on BitTorrent earlier than they could before SOC; in other words, pirates will benefit from SOC.

Originally posted by trencher93ish:"made available" - Does this mean on a torrent someplace? Most of the torrents I've connected to this year are miserably slow - bits per second download - for small files. Are movie torrents like this? If it is "made available" is there any chance the torrent would actually download successfully, and in a reasonable amount of time (i.e. not "200 years" in Azureus)? I don't know anything about movie torrents, but torrents overall seem ridiculously slow. I downloaded some small scans of o.o.p. material that took days, and these were tiny < 20MB. Could anyone actually complete a DVD download in anything like real time? Linux distro torrents seem really slow, too.

There are thousands of people that want to see new movies for free and big torrents can be extremely fast. I used to download a popular TV show that was on at the same time as something else I watched. I discovered that rippers regularly put up torrents of the East coast run within an hour or two which meant I could sometimes finish downloading the whole episode *before it finished playing* here on the West coast. That was 350MB of data in 30-60min on a torrent heavily saturated with leeches. A full length movie encoded to 700MB could be downloaded in less than an hour easily on a healthy torrent.

Some private trackers are even faster than this. They usually have a torrent up and running withing 1 minute after it hits Scene topsites, which in the case of TV shows can be as little as 5 minutes after it finishes airing. (20 minutes is the average).

Because of the pressure on users to seed their torrents it also downloads extremely quickly.

Originally posted by Hatchet2k4:The idiocy of the MPAA never ceases to amaze me. They don't even seem to realize that by enabling this they would be *reducing* their potential revenue by limiting their potential customers. Instead they seem hellbent on stopping piracy which can never be stopped. The pirates are always a step ahead and it only takes one to crack or steal and it's online. So why even try? They should instead focus on reaching as many customers as they actually can instead of pissing them off.

As well, how is this any different from being able to record to a vcr or dvr, which is legal? They just want to refight a battle they already lost.

They aren't hellbent on preventing privacy, that's just the cover they use because, like "think of the children" it's hard to come up with a response to it that doesn't set you up.

What they are hellbent on doing is having a system where every time you see, read, or hear something, they get paid and where when you see, read, or hear something, it's exactly in the manner they want it presented so they can charge for ads.

And so they do their best to insert things like SOC and DRM into content so that they have the power to limit your access to it and can control how you view it.

Originally posted by TheMerricat:What they are hellbent on doing is having a system where every time you see, read, or hear something, they get paid and where when you see, read, or hear something, it's exactly in the manner they want it presented so they can charge for ads.

Don't forget that technology to scan your living room and see how many people are watching something is already under development, and may be ready for deployment in 5 or 10 years. That's about how long it will be before you pay per viewer in your own home.

I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. Content producers are asking for the freedom to start using it, not a government mandate to force it on anyone. It's currently illegal for them to do so. The content producers don't really care much either way if you have compatible equipment or not. That's the beef.

So...what happens if the content producers start using it, but the hardware manufacturers don't play along and decide not to manufacture devices supporting SOC? Beyond that, since existing hardware doesn't support SOC, that means nobody will be able to view these "pre-DVD-release broadcasts," doesn't it? Doesn't that mean that SOC isn't guaranteed to produce a penny of revenue for the content producers?

Even if you figure that what they want to do is to delay releasing movies on DVD, and charge $10 a viewing for "pre-DVD-release movies"--like they currently do in many hotels across the country--the idea that they *only* want the freedom to go SOC just for the sake of gouging the public for "pre-DVD-release" showings just doesn't add up.

I'm baffled, frankly, by the myriad positions of the MPAA. Not too long ago here on ARS I was reading about the MPAA complaining about "shaky cam" movies as if they were straight digital copies of their digital masters. And yet, we often hear the MPAA complain most stringently about "digital" because the reproduction quality is so good--unlike, the MPAA says, VHS, for instance. I'd personally rate "shaky cam" reproductions right up there with VHS in terms of reproduction quality. And here we've got them wanting to shut down "analog holes" even if analog reproduction is nowhere near as good as digital reproduction? I must be missing something, because the MPAA's positions seem greatly contradictory. If so, then the only reasonable conclusion I can reach about the MPAA positions is that they are contradictory because the MPAA isn't telling the public what its real goals and aims are. It often seems to me that the MPAA is greatly incensed that it doesn't control everything relative to the entertainment industry, including the hardware people buy and the distribution channels through which the public buys and views MPAA content.

I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. Content producers are asking for the freedom to start using it, not a government mandate to force it on anyone. It's currently illegal for them to do so. The content producers don't really care much either way if you have compatible equipment or not. That's the beef.

So...what happens if the content producers start using it, but the hardware manufacturers don't play along and decide not to manufacture devices supporting SOC? Beyond that, since existing hardware doesn't support SOC, that means nobody will be able to view these "pre-DVD-release broadcasts," doesn't it? Doesn't that mean that SOC isn't guaranteed to produce a penny of revenue for the content producers?

Not that I disagree with your statements, I just want to remind you that a good number of the people who form the MPAA either are in bed with or are themselves a hardware manufacturer. The above scenario will not happen.

Not that I disagree with your statements, I just want to remind you that a good number of the people who form the MPAA either are in bed with or are themselves a hardware manufacturer. The above scenario will not happen.

That's what I am afraid of--that they'll collude with, say, the cable companies who'll only order boxes that support SOC. For all I know, SOC support might already be built into existing cable boxes so if and when they get the green light from the FCC they'll send out a bios update that'll turn it on. I think SOC is a very bad idea and am in favor of the practice remaining illegal.

I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. Content producers are asking for the freedom to start using it, not a government mandate to force it on anyone. It's currently illegal for them to do so. The content producers don't really care much either way if you have compatible equipment or not. That's the beef.

So...what happens if the content producers start using it, but the hardware manufacturers don't play along and decide not to manufacture devices supporting SOC? Beyond that, since existing hardware doesn't support SOC, that means nobody will be able to view these "pre-DVD-release broadcasts," doesn't it? Doesn't that mean that SOC isn't guaranteed to produce a penny of revenue for the content producers?

Not that I disagree with your statements, I just want to remind you that a good number of the people who form the MPAA either are in bed with or are themselves a hardware manufacturer. The above scenario will not happen.

So what do owners of analog only input devices do when the Superbowl is locked down via SOC? Or the World Series? Or any number of other specials out there?

SOC is a horrible, horrible way to control content considering most people who might possibly record these things only do it for their own personal use. And I think most of the general public who does record programs of this nature just doesn't have the knowledge, or wherewithal, to copy it to their computer, or to a DVD.

I'm not a fan of the MPAA by any stretch, but if they would actually serve their customers by offering pre-DVD release VoD movies and seeing if rampant piracy of this content increases before asking for this, I might be more inclined to say that SOC might be a solution. As it stands now they can go fark themselves.

I watch movies and TV shows on demand all the time, just not new releases. Why? Because I have to pay extra for them. Even on my new theatre setup (which I am loving more than one should), I’d rather pay the $11 to go see a movie.

In fact, maybe I’m the odd one out, but I *really* enjoy watching movies in theatres. The size of the screen, the amazing sound, and even the public nature of the event all appeal to all of my senses.

The thing is that if I’ve decided not to watch a movie in the theatre, it’s because I’ve no burning desire to see the movie. Will I watch it? Probably. But I’ve already decided that’s worth more as a rental or a cable offering than it is as an early viewing.

So this whole idea that pre-DVD release viewing is somehow a hot service that we’re all dying for is way beyond me. Judging by the comments, I am not alone in this.

I think you're misunderstanding the proposal. Content producers are asking for the freedom to start using it, not a government mandate to force it on anyone. It's currently illegal for them to do so. The content producers don't really care much either way if you have compatible equipment or not. That's the beef.

So...what happens if the content producers start using it, but the hardware manufacturers don't play along and decide not to manufacture devices supporting SOC? Beyond that, since existing hardware doesn't support SOC, that means nobody will be able to view these "pre-DVD-release broadcasts," doesn't it? Doesn't that mean that SOC isn't guaranteed to produce a penny of revenue for the content producers?

Not that I disagree with your statements, I just want to remind you that a good number of the people who form the MPAA either are in bed with or are themselves a hardware manufacturer. The above scenario will not happen.

Which would be why the CES is not on-board with SOC?

I think you mean the CEA, since a trade show wouldn't make sense in that context. And given the CEA is over 2,200 members strong, not all of them related to the manufacture of tv and tv related accessories, it isn't hard to conceive of a scenario where they'd be pissed.

Regardless, the CEA's opinions will be moot should the waiver be allowed. Once Sony and a few other big name companies start producing equipment designed to honor SOC, then everyone one will. And people will buy it like popcorn thinking they are getting a good deal.

Some of the statements in the article really ring false, or if not false, they are certanly less certain than the author comes across. For example, "...it will disable the ability of this gear to access what will immediately become the most valuable offering on television: pre-DVD release VoD movies."

I for one dispute the 'most valuable offering'. For the most part, the fare served up by Hollywood is drivel and the oppurtunity to 'see it sooner' (which really seems to translate to 'pay for it one more time') excites me about as much as reading the directions for the VCR. Oh, wait, thanks to our friends at the MPAA, the VCR doesn't work.

I wonder how much of this really has to do with control of how people use their DVRs. I'm sure the studios hate the idea that someone might record a VOD or PPV showing then watch it several times. They want to charge for each time it's streamed. For kid's movies that could be a big difference since kids tend to want to watch the same thing over and over.

...a wide variety of organizations besides PK oppose SOC, including the... Independent Film and Television Alliance.

That's an important bit.

SOC advocates are acting like they have a monopoly. They do, but it's more of a Microsoft-like "not quite" monopoly. There is competition out there.

The majority of consumers seem unable to judge things on their artistic merits, so budget, BO gross, and tech milestones have become the measure of a desirable movie. In MPAA land it's hard to tell whether people actually like a movie, or just know that they're "supposed" to like it and act accordingly.

Similarly, having the latest and greatest home theatre is reason enough for people to purchase upgrades. They won't understand the underlying mechanism of SOC. They'll just think that pre-release relies on some new and incompatible tech. They're used to the idea since the 8mm to BlueRay and rabbit ears to HDMI evolutions are visible to everyone.

But it's possible to ignore the MPAA. They don't own the *whole* entertainment industry. You can look elsewhere. It's not much different than shopping at smaller shops because you're sick of the chain-store experience. The chains won't ever die off, and you'll always be confronted by ads for their stuff and people talking about how awesome it all is. But you can just treat it like an entirely optional subculture.

What I don't get is why the independents are *opposing* SOC. It has the potential to push a ton of people toward alternative media (which is very good these days). Long-term, it's possible that coordinated efforts might allow something like an alternative TV ecosystem, if people are still interested in that (though I'd think small cinemas and the net would be more natural delivery systems). I'll be encouraging people towards independent films/art if they fell alienated by "Big Media".

All this is really just to say, "Bring on the SOC". But if what you want is Hollywood (films) minus Hollywood (MPAA), I'm betting you'll be SOL.

Here's a perfectly reasonable compromise: The MPAA can have their SOC after the DMCA has been repealed, specifically the anti-circumvention aspects.

I don't think most people really care whether the MPAA encrypts their content or contracts with hardware-manufacturers to implement some form of DRM. Nothing requires them to publish anything in cleartext, and if some hardware companies want to go along with the scheme, I say we let them. So long as others are permitted to work together to reverse-engineer the DRM protocols--which are inherently weak, depending on information security without ownership of or control over the physical hardware--and mass-market compatible, DRM-free hardware, no DRM scheme can ever remain unbroken for long.

I would also argue, however, that they should be required to register their content with the Library of Congress in the clear, without DRM, before receiving any form of copyright privilege. Automatic copyright without registration is one of the greater tragedies of modern copyright law. (The fact that copyright still exists at all being the greatest tragedy, of course.) Copyright imposes a major external cost on society in favor of the copyright holder. This is deliberate, as the purpose of copyright is to create an incentive, but simple registration for archival purposes is certainly not too much to ask in exchange.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.